(Continued)
Anti-Secessionist Argument: Only the U.S. Supreme Court has the power
to determine the lawfulness of a State’s Power and Authority to
Secede

Self-Preservation
Inherent in Sovereign States and in Nature

In cases
of self-preservation/secession, Hamilton cannot get away from the controlling
principle in Federalist Paper 26, in which he describes a situation where
the three federal branches of government conspire to encroach upon the
rights of the people and the sovereignty of the states. In this event,
Hamilton says,

“If
such presumptions can fairly be made, there ought at once to be an end
of all delegated authority. The people should resolve to recall
all the powers they have heretofore parted with out of their own
hands, and to divide themselves into as many States as there are counties,
in order that they may be able to manage their own concerns in person.”
(emphasis added).

Hamilton
speaks of true self-government here. But how can the people have the right
to dissolve their association with the federal government if the US S
CT or three fourths of the states say they do not have the power to do
so? Hamilton’s anti-secession-secession descriptions must be reconciled
somehow, and most certainly cannot be held against the states (speaking
of “detrimental reliance”).

Hamilton
recognizes that there may be a time when the federal government has gotten
so out of hand that the people of the states should consider an “end
of all delegated authority” and should dissolve political associations
so that they may “manage their own concerns in person,” ergo,
secession, self-preservation, self-defense and self-government. To this
end, Hamilton observes that “State legislatures will always be not
only the vigilant but suspicious and jealous guardians of the rights of
the citizens against encroachments from the federal government.”
FP 26.

But
under what authority would State legislatures have the power to guard
against federal encroachments if they are bound to the US S CT, one part
of the federal government? By what means can the states guard against
the federal government where the only method of guarding is through amending
the constitution, despite the fact that the constitution’s meaning
and intent is not defective. Is the constitution to be amended upon each
and every federal encroachment?

Why
would Hamilton suggest that the State legislatures not only “be
the VOICE, but if necessary, the ARM of their discontent”? FP 26.
What voice? What arm? What second amendment? What power would the voice
(persuasion) and arm (force) have if they possessed no authority to effectuate
that guardianship? Self-defense, self-preservation and self-government
mean nothing if they are conditioned upon what the federal government
says that means.

State’s
Power to Resist Unconstitutional Federal Actions

Vieira
intimated in his article that unconstitutional actions may be void, but
yet cannot be resisted by individual states until declared void by the
US S CT (or perhaps three fourths of the states). This in essence gives
validity to any federal unconstitutional act, despite the fact that the
act remains unconstitutional and contrary to the Supreme Law of the Land.
But somehow the states are supposed to suffer until the constitution is
changed or the federal supreme court comes to the rescue. This practical
application does not even conform to the understood means of redress regarding
a king’s violation of a constitution, nor does it conform
to what Alexander Hamilton describes in Federalist Paper 16.

In Law
of Nations, Vattel describes the manner in which a king must follow the
constitution and the means of redress and rights of defense the people
have against those unconstitutional acts:

“But
when the sovereign power is limited and regulated by the fundamental laws
of the state, those laws show the prince the extent and bounds of
his power, and the manner in which he is to exert it. The prince
is therefore strictly obliged not only to respect, but also to support
them. The constitution and the fundamental laws are the plan on which
the nation has resolved to labour for the attainment of happiness; the
execution is intrusted to the prince.

“Let
him religiously follow this plan; let him consider the fundamental laws
as inviolable and sacred rules; and remember that the moment
he deviates from them, his commands become unjust, and are but a criminal
abuse of the power with which he is intrusted. He is, by virtue of
that power, the guardian and defender of the laws: and while it is his
duty to restrain each daring violator of them, ought he himself to trample
them under foot?” Vattel, 101 (emphasis added).

Advertisement

These
emphasized words should stand out to anyone who has studied the principles
of limited government, for they are the same words used by our founders
throughout our freedom documents, including the constitution itself. So,
what is the remedy when the prince becomes unjust and a criminal against
those fundamental laws?

“If
the authority of the prince is limited and regulated by the fundamental
laws, the prince, on exceeding the bounds prescribed him, commands without
any right and even without a just title: the nation is not obliged
to obey him, but may resist his unjust attempts. As soon as a prince
attacks the constitution of the state, he breaks the contract which bound
the people to him; the people become free by the act of the sovereign,
and can no longer view him but as a usurper who would load them with oppression.”
Vattel, 104.

Similarly,
Alexander Hamilton shares the difference between the Articles of Confederation
(which allowed passive nullification) and the US Constitution (which allows
active nullification) relative to their ability to resist federal actions:

“The
plausibility of this objection will vanish the moment we advert to the
essential difference between a mere NON-COMPLIANCE [under the Articles
of Confederation] and a DIRECT and ACTIVE RESISTANCE [under the US Constitution].
If the interposition of the State legislatures be necessary to give effect
to a measure of the Union, [under the Articles of Confederation] they
have only NOT TO ACT, or to ACT EVASIVELY, and the measure is defeated.

“[But
under the U.S. Constitution, the State legislatures] would be obliged
to act, and in such a manner as would leave no doubt that they had encroached
on the national rights…Attempts of this kind would not often
be made with levity or rashness, because they could seldom be made without
danger to the authors, UNLESS IN CASES OF A TYRANNICAL EXERCISE OF THE
FEDERAL AUTHORITY.” Alexander Hamilton, FP 16 (emphasis added).

Hamilton
gives more credence to the power of the states to actively resist federal
tyranny in Federalist Paper 28. He says,

“If
the [federal] representatives of the people betray their constituents,
there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right
of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government…

“[I]n
a confederacy the people, without exaggeration, may be said to
be entirely the masters of their own fate. Power being almost
always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand
ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these
will have the same disposition towards the general government…

“It
may safely be received as an axiom in our political system, that the State
governments will, in all possible contingencies, afford complete security
against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority.”
(emphasis added)

How
can a “confederacy of people” be the “masters of their
own fate” where their fate is determined by nine judges accountable
to the tyrants causing the problems? How can the states provide a “complete
security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority,”
if their power to do so is curtailed by the US S CT? This is no power
at all, and where the US S CT conspires (in principle and effect) with
Congress and the President to deny the people of the states their rights
and sovereignty, the states are not bound to suffer at the hands of a
union that is enslaving them.

Resistance
against federal actions was never condemned by our founders given the
protections in our federal constitutional republic system--just the opposite.
Resistance: this is the American principle which gave courage and victory
to the colonies, and it will always prevail against any government that
attempts to usurp its defined limitations. And of course, resistance includes
secession.

Conclusion:
Matters of Sovereignty Belong to the People

Matters
of secession and nullification are political decisions to be made only
by the political body-politic of a sovereign. “Cases in law and
equity” by their very nature do NOT include matters of political
sovereignty of states. Extensions of court jurisdiction do not contain
the power to determine what state sovereignty means or is and to ultimately
destroy the very nature and character of the federal compact. These lines
of sovereignty are not ultimately maintained by a court which has no power
of enforcement. They are maintained by the bodies-politic which have the
power to make and unmake constitutions and have the power to govern themselves
according to their political sovereign determination.

Subscribe
to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

Enter
Your E-Mail Address:

The
next articles will address, Anti-Secessionist Argument: The US Constitution
Does Not Grant the State’s The Right to Secede Individually, and
even if it were admitted that secession is a right, it may only be accomplished
with the permission of at least three fourths of the states.

Timothy
Baldwin is an attorney from Pensacola, FL, who received his bachelor of
arts degree at the University of West Florida and who graduated from Cumberland
School of Law at Samford University in Birmingham, AL. After having received
his Juris Doctorate degree from Cumberland School of Law, Baldwin became
a Felony Prosecutor in the 1st District of Florida. In 2006, he started
his own law practice, where he created specialized legal services entirely
for property management companies.

Like his father,
Chuck Baldwin, Timothy Baldwin is an astute writer of cutting-edge political
articles, which he posts on his website, www.libertydefenseleague.com.
Baldwin is also the author of the soon-to-be-released book entitled, Freedom
For A Change, in which Baldwin expounds the fundamental principles
of freedom believed by America’s forefathers and gives inspiring
and intelligent application of those principles to our current political
and cultural standing.

Baldwin is involved
in important state sovereignty movement issues, including being co-counsel
in the federal litigation in Montana involving the Firearms Freedom Act,
the likes of which is undoubtedly a pivotal and essential ingredient to
restoring freedom and federalism in the states of America. Baldwin is
also a member of freedom organizations, such as The Oath-Keepers, and
believes that the times require all freedom-loving Americans to educate,
invigorate and activate the principles of freedom within the States of
America for ourselves and our posterity.

It is impossible
for human language to exactly draw that boundary line with mathematical
precision. That is all the more reason why the constitution did not put
the ultimate question of “where is the line” in one branch
of the federal government, unelected by the people, appointed and impeached
by the other branches of the federal government.